Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

Most of the captioning I see, if I miss what the speaker said and go back, 9 out of 10 the captioner missed it too. I also see a lot of captioning that is obviously not what was said, and means their hearing is even worse than mine. I think as far as quality goes, you get what you get; if the captioner is good, great. If not, not so great. They are not paid accordingly, they are paid to make the attempt and show up on time. It is not an industry with different levels of captioners ranked by senority and expertise, and no one gets promoted to a better position with more responsibility, because there are no better positions with more responsibility. It is what it is.

There is a difference between a live captioner that would provide captioning for television broadcasts and a service that would provide captioning for feature films and pre-recorded television. A live captioner does not have the script to work from and only has moments to key what they heard into the system so it can make it back to the network/station and be added to the stream. Captioned scripted programming often is the script ... with different text shown in the caption than was spoken by the actors. Sometimes the script changes and the caption is an older version. Getting it right instead of right now is an option with scripted and pre-recorded programming. A feature film is more likely to be accurate and descriptive than a television show with cheap captions.

Or check here at the website of another captioning service:http://www.captionad... Captioning.htm"For "live" real-time captioning, most agencies insist that a qualified real-time captioner must have an accuracy rate of at least 98.6%, which is the standard set by the NCRA." (National Court Reporters Association)

I find good captioning essential for Brit shows like Downton Abbey and sometimes even shows like Breaking Bad where an actor will "mumblecore" a critical line and the director will let them get away with it. The joke of captioning are the live translations on shows like SNL or live sports where they're behind by about 5 lines and then they miss half of them. Useless. I'd hate to read their court reporter logs! "The foreman said 'We find the defendant...(something)...then the judge said 'I sentence you to....(incoherent)..."

Whether done live or done not live, whether following a script or not, the process is the same, which is either transcribing a word or identifying it by hearing it and then transcribing it. Something a computer can do.

Sure, it could take 30 hours per hour if you have the budget and are meticulous. But unless it is a blockbuster movie (and many of those do not merit special treatment either) it's done live during a single playback. There is an option to go back, review, and change mistakes, but really, how often might that happen inside the parameters of the budget?

We have to remember that we have CC because we have to, and we have to because the deaf folks have one of the largest, best-organized, and effective lobbys going. More power to them, that's actually a good thing. But that means that if they could opt out, most program providers would, and that it does not pay much. Most CC comes to us by virtue of a gun to someone else's head.

If I were in that business I would also be in denial that computers will replace me in three years. But they will.

It's usually safe to talk honestly and openly with people because they typically are not really listening anyway.

Yeah, scripted shows are fine but the deaf are left up a creek with these live transcriptions. Sometimes I'll miss a funny sportscaster line and I think I can pick it up on playback with subtitles. Forget it. They not only always miss the funny line, but they miss half of what I can plainly hear. There's a ton of non-sequitors and broken sentences:

One pretends that they are doing something different and that they have great self-importance, and the other does the exact same process yet simply doesn't pretend. It may have something to do with the angle of the nose, and how much some think the rest of us can be easily seduced.

Again, the process is pretty basic. We can try to polish that turd, but that is still what it is; recognize a spoken word, write it down. The end. Nothing more; nothing less. Or just transcribe. There is no difference in the basic process regardless who might be doing it, although there are plenty that would like to make the rest of us think there is.

Think upscale restaurants. Often, the food is no better than what Guy Fiero visits on a regular basis. Maybe even not as good. But they sure would like us to think that there is something that validates the high prices, when often there is not. Expert wine connoiseurs, the best noses in the world (held at incredibly steep angles) have been tested, 10 months apart, on the same exact wines, and gave them staggeringly different ratings the second time. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

And, trainman, what could make you think that CC that is delivered to me is any different from CC delivered to you? Or anyone else? We all get the same thing, and live in the SAME world, and there is nothing special about captioning from WGBH or anywhere else; all you have to do is watch This Old House with CC on (and captioned by WGBH) and you will see the same garden-variety bad captioning you see on CNN.

The only thing that bothers me about the truth is that it makes some of us uncomfortable. I am sorry about that. But the only thing that makes many of us more uncomfortable is pretending, trying to convince ourselves that some fantasy is the truth, instead.

It's usually safe to talk honestly and openly with people because they typically are not really listening anyway.

Since people see differences in the actual programs I tend to think there are different levels of people caring and what they use to create the captions and such no matter how much you say it's all the same tom. The proof is in the actual broadcast.

Since people see differences in the actual programs I tend to think there are different levels of people caring and what they use to create the captions and such no matter how much you say it's all the same tom. The proof is in the actual broadcast.

Agreed ... as a Closed Captioning connoisseur I know there is a difference between a program that have captions of "[unintelligible]" vs "[ad lib toss to sports]". One has a person or device listening for the words and captioning, the other is using a script. (For those that don't know, a script is words written in advance that are spoken. Not writing down what is heard.)

Great care can be taken to create excellent captions ... or one can slop something together. I can tell the difference - and it isn't because someone told me that one program was captioned better than another - it is because I can read.

I can also tell the difference between a great novel and an online newspaper article. Both are words and usually describe characters and events. But there is certainly a difference!